Rush: Syrians gassed with help from U.S.?

Rush Limbaugh today raised the possibility that Syrian rebels were responsible for using chemical weapons on their own people – not President Bashar al-Assad.

Limbaugh said he based the theory on emails he received from friends over the weekend, both of whom “have lived in the Middle East” and “claim to know Bashar.”

The correspondents told Limbaugh that they suspect Assad is “being framed.”

The Syrian leader, they insist, would not have gassed his own people. In any case, Limbaugh’s friends asked, What would Bashar gain from committing such an atrocity?

An estimated 1,400 people died in a gas attack on a Damascus suburb just two weeks ago.

Limbaugh told listeners he was prepared to brush his friends’ opinions aside until he read an article by Yossef Bodansky, former director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, which claims that the chemical weapons attack was carried out by al Qaida terrorists posing as Syrian rebels – and that the U.S. may have had foreknowledge of the attack.

Limbaugh read the first two paragraphs of Bodansky’s World Tribune article on the air:

“There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East – mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters – which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the Aug. 21 chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a premeditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.

“The extent of U.S. foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the ‘horror’ of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light.”

In other words, Limbaugh explained, “Al Qaida was setting off chemical weapons on their own people … to create the situation where we take Bashir out for them because they can’t do it themselves.”

Noting that Bodansky, a consultant for the Department of Defense and the Department of State, is not an “Internet loony toon,” Limbaugh remarked, “If indeed this is a frame job, look how well it’s being run. … That template [for U.S. intervention] quickly came to life. It has all the energy in the world behind it.”

Limbaugh reminded listeners that back in September 2012, Foreign Policy magazine reported that “the U.S. has lost track of some of Syria’s chemical weapons … and does not know if any potentially lethal chemicals have fallen into the hands of Syrian rebels or Iranian forces inside the country.”

“I doubt that anybody remembered that Syrian rebels overran and controlled a government base that had chemical weapons last summer,” said Limbaugh.

“It’s an open question whether the rebels got their hands on chemical weapons last year,” he added, noting that an Associated Press story that ran Aug. 29 agreed with that assessment. “Meanwhile Kerry, the regime and media have used as their main argument that the rebels have never had access to chemical weapons, therefore they couldn’t have conducted that attack,” and Bashar had to be the culprit.

Limbaugh noted Bodansky didn’t name any of his sources. However, if Bodansky’s analysis is correct, Limbaugh concluded, “this is the set-up of all time.”

“I’m just putting this out as a possibility,” Limbaugh said. “It’s already out there. You know the old saying: ‘We report; you decide.'”

Should Congress give Obama authority to attack Syria?

Yes, the U.S. should do everything possible to topple Bashar Assad's regime

Yes, this is a humanitarian mission of the highest order

Yes, Syria's use of chemical weapons must be stopped at all costs

Yes, the U.S. will never be taken seriously again if we don’t back up our posturing

Yes, House Speaker John Boehner is right: Only the U.S. has the capability to stop Assad

Yes, how can anyone look at innocent, suffering children and not act?

Yes, even the Republican leadership is in favor of it. Bipartisanship has finally come to Washington

Yes, John Kerry says the U.S. has evidence of Syria's sarin use, and I believe him

Yes, it might help distract the media from all their so-called 'scandal' coverage and the impeachment movement

Yes, the U.S. has to stop abuses like governments gassing their own people

Yes, Syria's chemical weapons likely came from Iraq while it was ruled by Saddam Hussein. The U.S. must not let them get away again

Yes, Congress should give the OK so Obama can continue making a buffoon of himself

No, U.S. military action might not even have a real effect. The regime could use the affair as propaganda to stoke anti-Western sentiment

No, there are no vital national security interests at stake in Syria

No, the U.S. had more support going into the Iraq war, and look how that turned out

No, not one drop of American soldiers' blood should be shed in Syria

No, we have enough problems here to worry about

No, we're already broke. How can we afford a war?

No, didn't we learn our lesson from Egypt and Libya?

No, we're supporting the wrong side!

No, both sides are evil – but the current regime is better than what's coming if it's overthrown

No, Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to new overseas military intervention